State v. Norman
2017 Ohio 92
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Kabron Norman, a frequent babysitter and friend of a household member, was charged with multiple counts of rape, kidnapping, and gross sexual imposition based on allegations by two twin girls (born Feb. 22, 2007) and their older brother (born 2004).
- Alleged incidents occurred at the Imperial Avenue home (and some prior incidents); the twins were examined by a SANE and interviewed by social workers; no definitive physical trauma or inculpatory DNA was found.
- Indictment charged four counts of rape (child under 10/13-related statute), four counts of kidnapping, and gross sexual imposition counts with sexually violent predator specifications; two GSI counts were dismissed pretrial.
- Trial included a pretrial competency hearing for the three child witnesses; the court found them competent to testify.
- The jury convicted Norman on all counts; the court rejected sexually violent predator specifications but sentenced Norman to consecutive life sentences without parole.
- On appeal Norman raised eight assignments of error: witness competency, sufficiency, manifest weight, ineffective assistance, prosecutorial misconduct, cumulative error, indictment amendment, and jury instructions; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competency of child witnesses | State: children demonstrated ability to perceive, recollect, communicate, and understand truth; court properly conducted voir dire | Norman: twins (under 10) lacked competency; court should have allowed independent questioning | Court affirmed competency after voir dire; defense failure to timely object limited review to plain error and no plain error found |
| Sufficiency of evidence | State: victims’ and corroborating witness testimony suffices to prove rape, kidnapping, GSI beyond reasonable doubt | Norman: lack of physical/forensic evidence (no trauma, no DNA) makes proof insufficient | Viewing evidence in light most favorable to prosecution, evidence was sufficient to support convictions |
| Manifest weight of evidence | State: jury weighed credibility; testimony supported convictions despite minor inconsistencies | Norman: inconsistent statements (vaginal vs. anal), clothing details, and lack of physical findings undermine credibility | Court declined to reverse; not the exceptional case where jury clearly lost its way |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | State: defense made reasonable trial choices (voir dire, objections, expert use) | Norman: counsel failed to strike certain jurors, failed to challenge SANE credentials, and had other tactical failures | Court applied Strickland; found counsel’s performance reasonable and no prejudice shown |
| Prosecutorial misconduct | State: cross-examination and argument stayed within bounds; objections were sustained when needed | Norman: improper questions, intrusive closing comments, attacks on defense experts and implications about silence/pay | Court found objections timely sustained, no pattern of egregious misconduct, and no prejudice |
| Cumulative error | State: individual rulings were proper or harmless; no prejudicial aggregation | Norman: multiple evidentiary and procedural rulings cumulatively denied fair trial | Court held alleged errors were harmless or non-existent; cumulative-error doctrine inapplicable |
| Amendment of indictment/bill of particulars | State: amendments to conform to proof (location, mode of penetration) were proper and not identity-changing; defendant had notice | Norman: changes (hospital vs home; vaginal vs anal) prejudiced defense | Court allowed amendments under Crim.R.7(D); amendments did not change identity of offenses nor prejudice defendant |
| Jury instructions (dates of birth) | State: age is element; including DOB is factual and permissible | Norman: inclusion of DOB in instructions impermissibly shifted burden or prejudiced jury | Court found inclusion harmless; DOB was proved at trial and instruction still required finding victims were under statutory age |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Frazier, 61 Ohio St.3d 247 (Ohio 1991) (sets factors for determining competency of child witnesses)
- State v. Fry, 125 Ohio St.3d 163 (Ohio 2010) (competency requires ability to perceive/recall and understand truthfulness)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (distinguishes sufficiency and manifest weight standards)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (sufficiency standard: evidence viewed in light most favorable to prosecution)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Underwood, 3 Ohio St.3d 12 (Ohio 1983) (plain-error standard)
- State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (Ohio 2002) (Crim.R.52(B) plain-error limitations and analysis)